[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [etch-and-half] release notes review

On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 03:14 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> > I guess you already had some discussions on whether it should be
> > emphasized that "Etch-n-Half is _not_ like any other point release
> > because it adds hardware support".
> IMHO that's a sales-pitch...


> the release notes...should mainly be factual. Things like the release
> announcement, DPN and times.d.n are much better suited for
> "promotion".

...You are right.

> > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 05:25 -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > >   http://people.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/etchnhalf/
> >
> > * "is essentially just the most recent point release for etch"
> >   Of course this will have to be updated once 4.0r5 is released
> >   but I like the phrasing otherwise.
> >   Let me rephrase this as a question : Is EtchnHalf equal to
> >   4.0r4 or is it any Etch>=4.0r4 with some updated driver ?
> It will be any Etch>=4.0r4. Any Etch+1/2 images will always install the 
> then current point release.
> > * "[use] the current release of Debian Installer for lenny"
> >   Do we really mean "current", or the "beta 2" ?
> I really mean current.

Shouldn't the term "current" be rephrased into something that remains
accurate in a month.

> > * Can we add some hints to explain why netinst seems the best
> >   the pick, but it's only available for amd64 and i386.
> Right. That should be added. Will do so on the "installing" page.
> Note that other arches could be added to that but AFAIK we've not had any 
> requests to do so. See [1] for prior discussion.

Interesting to notice how x86's are fast moving target, as compared to
other arch (I'm a x86-only user).

> > Finally, I would like to reuse/refactor the wiki page EtchAndAHalf
> > to list FAQ/Frequent problem, à la Sarge2EtchUpgrade.
> > As usually, links to official release notes would be available at the
> > top of the page to avoid duplication of content.
> I'd like to note two other concerns: fragmentation of information and 
> translations. The website can be updated as well and is much better at 
> getting good quality translations.

I agree.

> IMO important errata should be listed there and not in the wiki.

Yes, That's always my concern on the wiki. Not to mention that people
should report bugs, not just document them (blame me for wlan0_rename;).

> The "installing" page already has provisions for adding those.

In a perfect world, we would have enough workforce, to get people to
watch IRCs, forums, mailing lists and the BTS to update official

In real world, some questions arise again and again on IRC, in the
mailing lists. People used to create personal web pages, or worse not
document those questions at all.

That's why I'm trying to get people to actually use the wiki (which is a
good collaboration place, with low entry barriers). Take the example of
iwlwifi page. It was created 7 month ago, received 39 commits and has
130 hits/day as average). Whereas I never promoted the page ipw3945. It
never received more than 32 hits/day even though it has similar popcon
(888 instead of 1025).

Once the information is gathered here, It can be moved to some official
places (mainly : in www.d.o/* and README.Debian). That would be my next
step, once I've got people to use the wiki rather than do nothing.


Reply to: